Disposed¶29

M/S Lakhdatar Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Gnctd

Delhi HC17 Nov 2025W.P.(C)/11444/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST registration cancellation SCN left undecided for ~2 years; writ petition under W.P.(C) 11444/2025 before Delhi High Court; Section 16 CGST Act 2017; Input Tax Credit (ITC) violation; directions to file reply to SCN dated 08.08.2023 and for Departmental adjudication; non-disclosure of turnover facts by petitioner; turnover figures Rs. 17.5 crores, Rs.6,69,26,541.98/- (2022-23), Rs.9,95,07,787.25/- (2023-24); purchases from cancelled dealers; bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain; decided 17.11.2025; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions: Petitioner to file reply to the impugned SCN dated 8th August, 2023; Department to proceed with adjudication in accordance with law; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶29

M/S Lakhdatar Enterprises Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Gnctd — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11444/2025

¶4

M/S LAKHDATAR ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES, GNCTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumit K Batra, Adv. (9911211000)

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

¶8

O R D E R % 17.11.2025

¶9

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the show cause notice for Cancellation of GST Registration dated 8th August, 2023 (hereinafter, 'the impugned SCN') which has been issued to the Petitioner on the ground that the availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, 'ITC') by the Petitioner is in violation of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

¶11

No reply has been filed by the Petitioner to the impugned SCN.

¶12

The case of the Petitioner leading to the present petition is that no decision has been taken by the Department in the impugned SCN and the same has remained unresolved for nearly 2 years. Thus, the Petitioner seeks for directions to the Department for the decision to be taken.

¶13

On the last date of hearing, ld. Counsel appearing for Mr. Sumit K. Batra,

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2025 at 14:58:50

¶16

submitted that as per the instructions received by him, the Petitioner had kept its GST registration valid only for eight to nine months and during this period, the turnover was approximately more than Rs. 17.5 crores.

¶17

The Court had also perused the record and noted that the said submission made my ld. Counsel for the Respondent had not been disclosed by the Petitioner in the petition. Accordingly, the Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner has not disclosed all the material and relevant facts in this petition.

¶18

Thus, upon hearing the parties, the Court had issued the following directions on the last date of hearing i.e. 25th August, 2025:

¶19

“8. Accordingly, let the Petitioner file an affidavit in four weeks giving the following details:

¶20

i. The nature of business which was being undertaken while the GST Registration was valid;

¶21

ii. Total turnover during the period when the GST registration was valid;

¶22

iii. The ITC either passed on or availed of by the Petitioner.

¶23

9. In the meantime. Id. Counsel for the Respondent may also seek instructions as to whether any further proceedings have been held after the issuance of impugned SCN was issued or whether any order has been passed in this regard.”

¶24

The affidavit required to be filed by the Petitioner in terms of the last order has not been filed.

¶25

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has produced the turnover details of the Petitioner which shows that the turnover for 2022-23 was Rs.6,69,26,541.98/and for the year 2023-24 was Rs.9,95,07,787.25/-. It further shows that purchases have also been made by the Petitioner from cancelled dealers. 10. Accordingly, let the Petitioner file a reply to the impugned SCN dated 8th August, 2023 and the Department shall proceed with adjudication thereto,

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2025 at 14:58:50

¶28

in accordance with law.

¶29

The petition is disposed of in said terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶30

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶31

SHAIL JAIN, J.

¶32

NOVEMBER 17, 2025 kk/ss

¶33

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2025 at 14:58:50

M/S Lakhdatar Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Gnctd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Lakhdatar Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Gnctd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.C.Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

Jawahar Lal Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Inder Singh Since Deceased through Lr Krishan Rana Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shangri-La International Hotel Management Pte. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (International TAX)-3, Delhi & Ors.

Annu Devi Vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Individual Non Taxable Entity, Director a and T Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Commisisoner of Cgst Delhi West & Anr.

Munna Prasad Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.

M/S Rbc Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Fab India Trading Company Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Chauhan Kirana Trading through Its Proprietor, Sultan Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through the Commissioner of State Taxes & Anr.

Anoop Kumar Garg Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Imports)

M/S Anant Sharma Vs Union of India & Anr.

Puja Kumari Vs Commissioner of Customs

Harsh Goel (Legal Heir of Lt. Sh. Pushkar Goel Proprietor of M/S. Nand Plastics Industries) Vs GST Officer /Avato, Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi & Anr.